Psychological Incapacity: A Closer Look

Marriage, as defined in Article 1 of the Family Code of the Philippines, is a special contract of
permanent union between a man and a woman entered into in accordance with law for the
establishment of conjugal and family life. The State strictly protects the sanctity of marriage as the law
regards it as the foundation of the family and an inviolable social institution. However, based on the
records of Office of the Solicitor General, the number of marriage annulment cases in the Philippines
raised by 40 percent in the last decade in 2012 and the common ground cited for annulment was
psychological incapacity. P. Tubeza, Marriage annulments up 40%, says report, Phil. Daily Inquirer,
March 27, 2011, Available at http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/inquirerheadlines/nation/view/20110327327853/Marriage-annulments-up-40-says-report (Last visited, August 28, 2014)
Article 36 of the Family Code (FC), as amended by Executive Order 227, provides that a
marriage contracted by any party who, at the time of the celebration, was psychologically
incapacitated to comply with the essential marital obligations of marriage, shall likewise be void even
if such incapacity becomes manifest only after its solemnization. Accordingly, psychological
incapacity, as a ground for nullity of marriage, means the dissolution of marriage as if it never existed.
The action or defense for declaration of absolute nullity of marriage, which can be made by either
parties, is not subject to prescription as provided by Article 39, FC.
Basis of the Provision
The Family Code Revision Committee took the new provision on psychological incapacity from
paragraph 3 of Canon 1095 of the New Code of Canon Law, which stipulates that those who,
because of causes of a psychological nature, are unable to assume the essential obligations of
marriage are incapable of contracting marriage. Furthermore, A. Sempio-Diy, Handbook on the
Family Code of the Philippines 41 (1995) mentions the reasons why the Committee adopted the
abovementioned provision of the New Canon Law as ground for declaration of nullity of marriage, i.e.
as a substitute for divorce, as a solution to the problem of Church-annulled marriages and a
additional remedy to parties who are imprisoned of marriage that exists in name only.
Jurisprudential Development
A. Nature of Psychological Incapacity
Psychological incapacity is neither expressly defined nor given examples in the Family Code.
In Salita v. Hon. Magtolis, G.R. No. 106429, June 13, 1994, 233 SCRA 100, 107-108, it was quoted
that:
The Committee did not give any examples of psychological incapacity for fear that the
giving of examples would limit the applicability of the provision under the principle of ejusdem
generis. Rather, the Committee would like the judge to interpret the provision on a case-tocase basis, guided by experience, the findings of experts and researchers in psychological
disciplines, and by decisions of church tribunals which, although not binding on the civil courts,
may be given persuasive effect since the provision was taken from Canon Law.
Thus, cases of psychological incapacity must be examined and adjudged based on its own
facts and circumstances and not be confined in a particular meaning to merit its applicability as a
ground for nullity of marriage. It is subjective in nature and may be proven by preponderance of
evidence.

The Supreme Court has elucidated in a number of cases the nature and characteristics of
psychological incapacity. Santos v. Court of Appeals, 310 Phil. 21, 32-33 (1995) provides that
psychological incapacity should refer to no less than a mental (not physical) incapacity that causes a
party to be truly incognitive of the basic marital covenants that concomitantly must be assumed and
discharged by the parties to the marriage which, as so expressed by Article 68 of the Family Code,
include their mutual obligations to live together, observe love, respect and fidelity and render help and
support. In addition to that, the intention of the law is to confine the application of psychological
incapacity to the most serious cases of personality disorders, clearly demonstrative of an utter
insensitivity or inability to give meaning and significance to the marriage.
In the same case, the Supreme Court also enumerated gravity, juridical antecedence and
incurability as the characteristics of psychological incapacity. The incapacity must be grave or serious
such that the party would be incapable of carrying out the ordinary duties required in marriage; it must
be rooted in the history of the party antedating the marriage, although the overt manifestations may
emerge only after the marriage; and it must be incurable or, even if it were otherwise, the cure would
be beyond the means of the party involved.
B. Guidelines in Interpretation and Application and Evidentiary Requirement
A significant development in resolving psychological incapacity cases is presented in the case
of Republic v. Molina, G.R. No. 108763, February 13, 1997, 268 SCRA 198, 209-213. The Supreme
Court laid down specific guidelines in the interpretation and application of Article 36 of the Family
Code, summarized, as follows:
1) The burden of proof to show the nullity of the marriage belongs to the plaintiff. Any doubt
should be resolved in favor of the existence and continuation of the marriage and against
its dissolution and nullity.
2) The root cause of the psychological incapacity must be (a) medically or clinically identified,
(b) alleged in the complaint, (c) sufficiently proven by experts and (d) clearly explained in
the decision.
3) The incapacity must be proven to be existing at "the time of the celebration" of the
marriage.
4) Such incapacity must also be shown to be medically or clinically permanent or incurable.
5) Such illness must be grave enough to bring about the disability of the party to assume the
essential obligations of marriage.
6) The essential marital obligations must be those embraced by Articles 68 up to 71 of the
Family Code as regards the husband and wife as well as Articles 220, 221 and 225 of the
same Code in regard to parents and their children. Such non-complied marital obligation(s)
must also be stated in the petition, proven by evidence and included in the text of the
decision.
7) Interpretations given by the National Appellate Matrimonial Tribunal of the Catholic Church
in the Philippines, while not controlling or decisive, should be given great respect by our
courts.
8) The trial court must order the prosecuting attorney or fiscal and the Solicitor General to
appear as counsel for the state. No decision shall he handed down unless the Solicitor

General issues a certification, which will be quoted in the decision, briefly staring therein his
reasons for his agreement or opposition, as the case may be, to the petition.
However, the requirement on issuance of a certification by the Solicitor General was dispensed
by the implementation of A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC or the Rule on Declaration of Absolute Nullity of Void
Marriages and Annulment of Voidable Marriages, which took effect on March 15, 2003
It must be noted and emphasized that despite of the guidelines set forth in Molina case, there
is still a need to treat each case differently. In Ngo Te v. Yu-Te, G.R. No. 161793, February 13, 2009,
579 SCRA 193, 224, the Supreme Court admittedly said that it may have imposed a rigid set of rules,
as one in Molina, in resolving cases of psychological incapacity. However, it will not abandon such
rules but reemphasized on other perspectives that should govern Article 36 and the totality of
evidence presented. Furthermore, in Marcos v. Marcos, G.R. No. 136490, October 19, 2000, 343
SCRA 755, it stated that if the totality of evidence presented is enough to sustain a finding of
psychological incapacity, then actual medical examination of the person concerned need not be
resorted to.
C. Examples of Cases Constituting Psychological Incapacity
One of the landmark cases of psychological incapacity is Chi Ming Tsoi v. Court of Appeals,
G.R. No. 119190, January 16, 1997, 266 SCRA 324 where the husband had never had sexual
contact with his wife after ten months of cohabitation. The Supreme Court held that such abnormal
reluctance or unwillingness to consummate his marriage is strongly indicative of a serious personality
disorder which to the mind of this Court clearly demonstrates an utter insensitivity or inability to give
meaning and significance to the marriage within the meaning of Article 36 of the Family Code.
Moreover, one of the essential marital obligations is to procreate children, thus, constant nonfulfillment of this obligation will finally destroy the integrity and wholeness of marriage.
Next, in the case of Ngo Te v. Yu-Te, G.R. No. 161793, February 13, 2009, 579 SCRA 193,
both parties were considered to be psychologically incapacitated. Based on expert opinion, the
husband has dependent personality disorder while the wife has narcissistic and anti-social personality
disorder. Both cannot assume the essential marital obligations due to their respective psychological
disorders.
Another case where psychological incapacity was appreciated is Antonio v. Reyes, G.R. No.
155800, March 10, 2006, 484 SCRA 353. The Supreme Court ruled that the wifes constant lying and
extreme jealousy was medically attested to be an abnormal and pathological behavior which amounts
to psychological incapacity. Her inability to distinguish from fantasy and reality, truth from fiction
antedates from the very beginning of the marriage and rendered her incapable of giving meaning and
significance to her marriage.
D. Examples of Cases not Constituting Psychological Incapacity
One of the common misconceptions about psychological incapacity is that it encompasses
irreconcilable differences as shown in the case of Republic v. Molina, G.R. No. 108763, February 13,
1997, 268 SCRA 198. The Supreme Court reversed the decision of the lower courts concluding that
the marriage subsists and remains valid and held that mere showing of opposing and conflicting
personalities does not constitute psychological incapacity. It must be shown that parties must exhibit
inclinations, which would not meet essential marital obligations due to some psychological illness and
not mere difficulty or refusal to perform such obligations.

Similarly, in the case of Republic v. Hamano, G. R. No. 149498, May 20, 2004, 428 SCRA
735, abandonment is also not tantamount to psychological incapacity. The Japanese husbands act of
abandonment was doubtlessly irresponsible but it was never alleged nor proven to be due to some
kind of psychological illness. After the wife testified on how her husband abandoned his family, no
other evidence was presented showing that his behavior was caused by a psychological disorder.
Lastly, in the recent cases of Republic v. De Gracia, G.R. No. 171557, February 12, 2014 and
Mendoza v. Republic, G.R. No. 157649, November 12, 2012, 685 SCRA 16, the Supreme Court held
that the wifes emotional immaturity, irresponsibility or even sexual promiscuity could not be equated
with psychological incapacity. Indeed, to be declared clinically or medically incurable is one thing; to
refuse or be reluctant to perform ones duties is another.
Conclusion
With the influx of petitions for declaration of absolute nullity, the ground on psychological
incapacity may be abused since it is not concretely defined in the laws. Nevertheless, the Supreme
Court reiterated that psychological incapacity is interpreted in a case-to-case basis. It follows
guidelines which are not limiting its scope and considers the totality of evidence presented. In
summary, psychological incapacity boils down to utter insensitivity or inability to give meaning and
significance to the marriage and inability to perform essential marital obligations due to a serious
cases of psychological disorder which is already existing at the time of marriage. In B. Malibiran,
Psychological Incapacity Revised: A Review of Recent Jurisprudence, 52 Ateneo L.J. 392, 416-417
(2007), it highlighted that the Supreme Court does not take these cases lightly and puts its best
efforts to uphold marriage and family as a permanent institution. Finally, it also states that far from
attacking marriage, psychological incapacity serves a protection by ensuring that it is entered only
those who have the psychological capacity to foster the family as a basic institution of Philippine
society.
Bibliography:
P. Tubeza, Marriage annulments up 40%, says report, Phil. Daily Inquirer, March 27, 2011, Available
at http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/
inquirerheadlines/nation/view/20110327-327853/Marriage-annulments-up-40-says-report (Last
visited, August 28, 2014)
Sempio-Diy, Alicia. Handbook on the Family Code of the Philippines. Quezon City: Joer Printing
Services (1995) 41-42p
B. Malibiran, Psychological Incapacity Revised: A Review of Recent Jurisprudence, 52 Ateneo L.J.
392, 416-417 (2007)